Outline:
Donald Trump has faced criticism for “reaching a new low” following his decision to have the US exit the United Nations’ main climate agreement.
In a Presidential Memorandum issued yesterday (7 January), the President states that it is “not in the best interest of the United States” to continue being part of, engage with, or offer assistance to over 60 international organizations, agreements, and accords. Several of these bodies, committees, and advisory groups concentrate on issues such as climate change, migration, and labor.
The action comes after Trump’s ongoing attempts to promote polluting fossil fuels while slowing down advancements in clean energy initiatives. Last month, the US government’s Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) eliminated all references to fossil fuels – the primary cause of global warming – from its widely accessed online page that outlines the reasons behind climate change.
Trump steps back from the UN climate agreement
The most significant exit by the Trump administration was leaving the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This important agreement was approved in 1992 by nearly 200 countries, and is frequently regarded as the foundation of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which the US has already withdrawn from.
It seeks to maintain greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere at a point that will avoid “dangerous human impact on the climate system.” Nevertheless, the UNFCCC places responsibility on developed nations to take the initiative.
This indicates that the US has committed to backing climate change initiatives in underdeveloped nations by offering monetary aid for adaptation that is “in addition to any financial help they currently give to these countries”.
Which other groups has the United States left?
The administration has already removed its backing for international bodies such as the UN Human Rights Council and UNESCO. Recently, it has severed connections with 66 groups, most of which operate in areas that Trump has labeled as promoting a “woke” agenda.
This includes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading authority on climate science. The IPCC provides governments at all levels with scientific information which they can use to develop climate policies.
IPCC reports also play a crucial role in international climate discussions, driving worldwide advancements. Specialists caution that leaving the panel could undermine the scientific guidelines that safeguard the public against false information, slow progress, and “careless choices.”
Additional groups featured on the administration’s list are UN Oceans, 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and the International Renewable Energy Agency.
A ‘new rock bottom’ for Trump
The action caused anger among groups and climate experts globally, with numerous people claiming it will render the world “significantly more dangerous.”
Dr Rachel Cleetus from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) claims that exiting the fundamental climate change agreement is a “new low” for Trump – indicating that the administration is embracing “authoritarianism” and “anti-science” at the expense of its citizens’ health.
“But, progressive US states and the rest of the world acknowledge that severe and expensive climate effects are increasing quickly, and coordinated global efforts remain the sole feasible way to ensure a habitable future for our children and grandchildren,” she adds.
Leaving the global climate agreement will only lead to increased isolation for the United States and reduce its international reputation, especially after a series of unacceptable actions that have already damaged our country’s credibility, strained relationships with some of our most trusted historical allies, and made the world less secure.
Dr Cleetus claims that the administration is “bending to fossil fuel polluters”– a worry that has intensified lately after the US assumed control ofVenezuela and its oil reserves.
United States “not exempt” from legal responsibilities
“Amidst rising sea levels, extreme heat, and fatal disasters that require immediate and unified efforts, the US government is opting to step back,” states Rebecca Brown, President and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
The choice to stop funding and exit the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) does not release the US from its legal responsibilities to combat climate change and address climate damage, as the world’s top court emphasized last year.
In July 2025, the International Court of Justice The (IJC) issued a landmark ruling on climate change, detailing the obligations of nations under international law. This was the most significant case handled by the ICJ, receiving over 150 submissions from countries, global organizations, and non-governmental groups.
The International Court of Justice serves as the top judicial body globally, yet its 133-page advisory opinion holds no legal obligation. While it does not create new international laws, it provides clarity on current ones and is expected to be referenced in upcoming climate-related legal cases.
The International Court of Justice confirmed that a “clean, healthy, and sustainable environment” is considered a fundamental human right, similar to the rights to water, food, and shelter.
“This move is merely an extension of this Administration’s attempts to place corporate gains above the well-being of people and the environment, and to disregard legal principles,” Brown adds.
Leaving institutions that aim to promote global climate efforts does not alter the harsh truth of the climate crisis, challenge the undeniable proof of its origins, or erase the US’s evident duty for its outcomes.
What happens next?
David Widawsky, the head of the World Resources Institute, an organization focused on creating low-carbon and robust economies, claims that withdrawing from the UNFCC is a “strategic mistake” that relinquishes U.S. benefits without any compensation.
A 30-year-old pact serves as the basis for global climate collaboration,” Widawsky states. “Leaving it doesn’t merely position America apart from the efforts—it removes the US entirely from the scene.
In the future, Widawsky forecasts that American communities and businesses will experience a decline in economic standing as other nations seize the employment opportunities, financial gains, and trade associated with the rapidly growing clean-energy sector.
In 2023, 1.6 million individuals in the European Union were working within the renewable energy sector. This figure is expected to rise significantly as solar andwindemerge as the EU’s biggest source of electricity.
“Nevertheless, global climate diplomacy will not waver,” Widawsky adds.
Other countries recognize the indispensable role of the UNFCCC in promoting collaboration and pushing forward climate solutions that the global community desperately requires. When nations unite on climate issues, it helps save lives, generates employment, enhances economic stability, and paves the way for a more prosperous future.
The door remains ‘open’ for the US
In a message conveyed to Euronews Green, Simon Stiell, the executive secretary of the UNFCCC, mentioned that “the doors are still open” for the United States to return in the future.
“Although other countries are moving ahead collectively, this recent retreat from global leadership, climate collaboration, and scientific efforts will only negatively impact the US economy, employment, and quality of life, as wildfires, floods, extreme storms, and droughts continue to escalate,” he adds.
It represents a massive self-inflicted mistake that will make the US less secure and less wealthy. It will result in higher costs for energy, food, transportation, and insurance for American families and companies, as renewable energy continues to become more cost-effective than fossil fuels, as climate-related disasters increasingly affect American agriculture, businesses, and infrastructure each year, and as the unpredictability of oil, coal, and gas leads to more conflicts, regional instability, and forced migration.
The UNFCCC cautions that this decision will result in fewer American manufacturing jobs, while all other major economies increase their investments in clean energy. “It is evident that this is the only approach to safeguard every nation from unprecedented global warming and its severe effects on every economy and population,” Stiell states.